Four years ago, Ni, a Shanghai woman in her 40s, turned gray one night. After renting his house to tenant Liao for more than 10 years, Ni wanted to increase the rent. Unexpectedly, Liao took out an IOU and asked Ni to repay 100,000 yuan. Since the IOU was indeed signed by Ni himself, the court ruled that Ni lost the case. Ni kept petitioning, insisting that he had been wronged.

Now, with the intervention of the Shanghai Qingpu People’s Procuratorate, this case has taken an unprecedented “big turn” and the tenant was sentenced to two and a half years in prison. What is going on? Signature

In September 2019, the People's Procuratorate of Qingpu District, Shanghai received a complaint case transferred from the police. This is an ordinary civil case arising from a debt dispute. The court has concluded the case with all the witnesses and material evidence. However, the defendant Ni insists that he was unjust and continues to petition.

When presenting the case to the prosecutor, Ni almost fainted several times due to elevated blood pressure. This also made the prosecutor confused. At that time, he did not expect that the white-haired petitioner would The woman was only in her early 40s, and what was even more unexpected was that he started a two-year journey of handling the case.

It turns out that since 2003, Ni rented out a front-end house under his name to Liao to open a chess and card room, and the rent was 16,000 yuan a year. A few years later, Liao proposed to replace the lease contract with a receipt. Ni was not well educated and could only write his name. Seeing that the receipt was concise and clear, he agreed. For more than ten years after that, when Liao paid the rent every year, he would write a receipt and give it to Ni to sign.

In July 2016, Ni planned to replace her house, but there was still a shortfall of 30,000 yuan. She negotiated with the seller to make up the rent after collecting the rent. Later, Ni told Liao that the rent would rise to 32,000 yuan. After hearing this, Liao said it would take some time to raise money. In mid-August 2016, Liao informed Ni to come get the money, and Ni went with the homeowner.

The homeowner was waiting outside the chess and card room. Ni went upstairs alone to find Liao. A few minutes later, the two went downstairs together. The three of them counted 32,000 yuan in cash in the chess and card room. At this time, two customers happened to walk by and looked at them curiously. Liao saw this in his eyes and remembered it in his heart.

Ni signed the receipt as usual, but Liao asked her to "leave a phone number" on a folded piece of paper. After Ni wrote down the phone number, Liao asked her to sign again. , Ni was puzzled but still did it. Lost the case

Unexpectedly, on September 7, 2017, Ni suddenly received a notice from the court that Liao actually sued her to pay back the money. What shocked her even more was that Liao took out a two-month payment. The rent and loan agreement of a person, it reads: Ni now receives 32,000 yuan per year from Liao for rent, and pays a one-time payment of 160,000 yuan for 5 years, and borrowed 100,000 yuan from Liao for the new sale of the house. Interest is calculated at 2% per month. The signature above was authentically written by Ni. It was like a bolt from the blue. Ni was so anxious that he couldn't stand up for a while. The man in his 40s grew a head full of white hair overnight.

In January 2018, the first instance of the case was heard. Liao had a rental and loan agreement, and witnesses appeared in court to testify. Two of them were customers passing by the chess and card room at the time, confirming that they saw Ni and Liao with their own eyes. The two paid "more than 200,000 yuan." Another witness was Liao's brother-in-law, who testified that Liao had borrowed 100,000 yuan from him to lend to the landlord, and even the delivery time, location, and stored packages were detailed. Extremely clear.

Since all the witnesses and physical evidence were available, the court ruled that the agreement came into effect, which meant that Ni not only had to continue renting the house to Liao for 5 years, but also had to repay Liao’s 100,000 yuan loan and 2% of the loan. Monthly interest. Ni refused to accept the verdict and petitioned many times. In September 2019, the case was transferred from the public security agency to the Qingpu Procuratorate for review. Peeling the cocoon

Prosecutors have heard confessions from all parties in the case many times. Song, Liao's brother-in-law who had appeared in court to testify, became a breakthrough in the case. After being questioned several times by prosecutors about the case, Song, who had an uneasy conscience, admitted that Liao had never borrowed 100,000 yuan from him.

According to Song’s recollection, before the case went to trial, Liao came to him and said that the landlord Ni had borrowed money from him when he bought a house last year. Now I want to charge some interest from the landlord, but due to the relationship that has lasted for more than ten years, I can't ask for help, so I want to ask Song for help and pretend that I borrowed the money from Song.

At that time, Song thought it was just a little interest and not a big deal, so he agreed to appear in court to testify and discussed the testimony in advance. After the court's ruling, Song realized that the matter was not that simple. He had also been deceived by Liao, and gradually felt regretful.

With Song’s testimony, the public security organs opened a case for investigation into Liao on suspicion of fraud. However, Song's testimony was only one-sided, and the truth is still confusing. After careful consideration, the prosecutor selected several directions for investigation.

First of all, conduct a reasonable assessment of Liao's operating income, and at the same time guide the public security organs to find a professional drawing company to draw the layout of the whole house, and carefully analyze the route map of the flow of people. The drawing shows that it is impossible for the two customers to see clearly the amount of money counted by the three people at a glance.

Secondly, the prosecutor went to the chess and card room for on-site inspection and found that the drawer that Liao claimed was used to store large amounts of cash was never locked and was seriously damaged. The room was located near the stairs leading to the chess and card room. On weekdays, People come and go, unlike a place where ordinary people store large amounts of cash.

Finally, the prosecutor found the homeowner who sold the house to Ni and confirmed that when Ni went downstairs, he did not have a large bag to hold the remaining "230,000 yuan". After collecting 30,000 yuan in cash, they , immediately went to the real estate trading center to complete the procedures, and did not see the remaining money throughout the process. Based on multiple pieces of evidence, in September 2019, the procuratorate made a decision to approve the arrest of Liao. Redress of injustice

In July 2020, the case was heard in court. Liao refused to plead guilty, claiming that he had witnesses who could testify. The court decided to adjourn temporarily to collect additional evidence.

At this time, Song's testimony had been overturned by himself, and the testimony of the two customers who had appeared in the chess and card room became particularly important. From August 2020 to April 2021, the procuratorate directed the public security organs to re-collect evidence from the other two witnesses who appeared in court to testify at that time. Only then did they learn that Liao’s lawyer had approached them before the trial. They said they only saw Liao. When discussing money with Ni, he did not see the specific amount, but the lawyer emphasized many times that Liao gave Ni 260,000 yuan at that time. Affected by this, the two witnesses believed that this was the real amount, and they testified as such in court. At this point, all testimony in the civil lawsuit has been overturned.

In September 2021, the court accepted all witness testimonies and exhibits submitted by the procuratorial agency, and concluded the trial of this case. The court found that the defendant Liao, for the purpose of illegal possession, fabricated facts, concealed the truth, and defrauded others of huge amounts of property. He was sentenced to two and a half years in prison and fined for fraud. Currently, the judgment has taken effect. Since Liao has been convicted, the original civil judgment has lost its legal validity. Liao's attorney was also severely punished by the local Justice Bureau for being suspected of violating regulations and inducing witnesses to commit perjury.

Only after Ni was "vindicated" did he know the whole story. It turned out that when Ni proposed to raise the rent, Liao was raising money for his son to build a house in his hometown. He felt that Ni was taking advantage of others' danger, so he held a grudge and set up a trap to retaliate. He knew that Ni's education level was not high, so he carefully crafted a plan to trick Ni into signing a blank note, and then forged a rental agreement and a loan agreement, with the purpose of teaching Ni "a lesson." Unexpectedly, this "lesson" eventually landed him in jail.